Hydromar Corp. v. Construction Aggregates Corp.

32 A.D.2d 749, 300 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3831
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 5, 1969
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 749 (Hydromar Corp. v. Construction Aggregates Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hydromar Corp. v. Construction Aggregates Corp., 32 A.D.2d 749, 300 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3831 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Opinion

Order, entered January 17, 1969,

unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, the motion to vacate the attachment denied and the attachment reinstated without prejudice to a motion by defendant to discharge the attachment by filing an appropriate undertaking, with the matter of ultimate responsibility for payment of sheriff’s fees to await the event. On this motion, brought by order to show cause, to vacate an attachment properly issued against property of a foreign corporation, the burden is on the defendant to show that the attachment is unnecessary to the security of the plaintiff. (See CPLR 6223; Fuller Co. v. Vitro Corp., 26 A D 2d 916.) On the record, we conclude that the defendant has failed to sustain that burden and therefore that the attachment should not have been vacated. The financial statements in the record do not adequately reflect the fiscal affairs of this particular defendant since they are consolidated statements which consist, without allocation, of figures applicable to defendant and its subsidiaries. Additionally, on the record, it appears that the major portion of defendant’s assets in New York consists of intangibles or transitory items. The defendant may, if it so desires, make a motion pursuant to CPLR 6222 at Special Term to discharge the attachment with the filing of an appropriate undertaking. The fixing of responsibility for Sheriff’s fees is premature. (See CPLR 8014.) Concur—■ Stevens, P. J., Eager, Tilzer, Markewich and McNally, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Trigo Hnos., Inc. v. Premium Wholesale Groceries, Inc.
424 F. Supp. 1118 (S.D. New York, 1976)
Regnell v. Page
82 Misc. 2d 506 (New York Supreme Court, 1975)
Usdan v. Dunn Paper Company
392 F. Supp. 953 (E.D. New York, 1975)
Sugar v. Curtis Circulation Company
383 F. Supp. 643 (S.D. New York, 1974)
Kend v. Chroma-Glo, Inc.
51 F.R.D. 547 (D. Minnesota, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 A.D.2d 749, 300 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hydromar-corp-v-construction-aggregates-corp-nyappdiv-1969.